ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES (Re: Docket Nos. 228, 229, 234, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 252) (Re: Docket Nos. 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 55)

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

In nine separate motions currently before the court, Plaintiffs Mary Bernstein and Krislee Hall seek to compel discovery from Defendants Apollo Group Inc. and The University of Phoenix, Inc.1 Defendants oppose some (but not all) of these motions and move for a protective order staying all discovery until the presiding judge rules on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss.2 Defendants also request monetary sanctions.3 This morning, the parties appeared for a hearing. In the interest of clarity, the court now summarizes the rulings it issued during the hearing.

The parties are to conduct an in-person Rule 26(f) conference in my jury room in San Jose on or before August 15, 2014 and certify to the court that they have done so by August 22, 2014. Plaintiffs' motions to compel discovery are DENIED without prejudice to renewal after Judge Koh's ruling on the motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion for a protective order is GRANTED but only IN-PART. Following the Rule 26(f) conference, Plaintiffs may not serve any further discovery requests on Defendants until Judge Koh rules on the motion to dismiss. With respect to Plaintiffs' pending requests, Defendants are under no obligation to respond until 24 hours after Judge Koh issues her ruling on the motion to dismiss. At that time, Defendants are to serve their written responses to any outstanding discovery requests, with rolling production of documents to begin 30 days later. Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.